Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday March 21, 2013 @10:21AM
from the point-of-clarification-your-honor dept.

jfruh writes "Defense Distributed, a U.S. nonprofit that aims to make plans for guns available owners of 3-D printers, recently received a federal firearms license from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. That license doesn't cover semi-automatic weapons and machine guns, though — and there are questions about whether the legislation that defines that license really apply to the act of giving someone 3-D printing patterns. Experts on all sides of the issue seemed to agree that no clarification of the law would happen until a high-profile crime involving a 3-D printed weapon was committed."

3d printing changes nothing about this, you cannot get or make NFA weapons without getting a stamp

...and a time machine.

Strictly speaking, this is not true. "NFA" covers suppressors, short barreled shotguns, destructive devices, etc, and those can still be made today. Even a machine gun can still be made, though, of course, you'd have to be a SOT to possess it, and you'd have to be making it for some entity that was legal to buy one (like law enforcement), or for some other purpose allowed by law.

But there's no regulation limiting may access to or right to own or distribute design schematics for those same things. In the case of Defense Distributed, they are currently licensed to build and distribute standard firearms, but not arms govered by NFA, like automatic weapons, suppressors, etc. But the question is can Defense Distributed still provide designs for NFA weapons. I would contend that the answer is yes.

I would equate this to writing or distributing a manual on how to make acetaminophen tabl

You can either use plumbing pipe or buy one online.Obviously the use of plumping pipe has accuracy repercussions but it can be a functional firearm if that is all you are going for.Barrels are not controlled by any law I know of.

Actually 'Rifle Barrels' under a certain length are regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) and enforced by the ATF.
The NFA defines NFA "firearm" as:
A shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length or any other weapon, other than a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machinegun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such a firearm is included in the foregoing definition.[3][4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act [wikipedia.org]
-Casey

The minimum legal length in the US is sixteen inches. That being said, the ATF generally considers it "constructive intent" if you have the parts to make an illegal weapon and ONLY an illegal weapon. It's been officially clarified that having a Thompson Contender interchangeable-barrel handgun, a rifle stock for the TC, AND a legal-length barrel is not constructive intent - while you could make a short-barreled rifle by putting the stock on TC, the long barrel justifies owning the stock. Same goes for AR pistols, if you have an AR pistol and an AR stock but no full-sized AR rifle, you're gonna be in some pretty serious poop. If you do have a rifle though, you're fine.

It is legally grey and I'm sure the ATF has played fast and loose with it before, but AFAIK it isn't a huge problem.

Not a stupid question. The GP is simply wrong. 16 inches is specific to a RIFLE barrel. 18 for shotguns. If the 11 inch barrel is on a registered SBR (short barrel rifle) or on a pistol, it's legal. The gun it's attached to, and how that is classified is what makes it legal or not.

Still, though, why do we have these restrictions? Why is an 11-inch barrel legal in one instance and illegal in another?

You should stop looking for a legitimate rationale or intellectual honesty within the NFA: it's almost entirely arbitrary and enforcement is capricious [princelaw.com]. Essentially, the only valid functional classification within the NFA is that of a machine gun (ie. a firearm that fires two or more shots with a single pull of a trigger); however, even that led to the ATF issuing a machine gun classification to a shoelace [everydaynodaysoff.com].

Furthermore, do you know that suppressors (aka "silencers") are classified as Title II firearms accord

Actually 'Rifle Barrels' under a certain length are regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA) and enforced by the ATF.
The NFA defines NFA "firearm" as:
A shotgun or rifle having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length or any other weapon, other than a pistol or revolver, from which a shot is discharged by an explosive if such weapon is capable of being concealed on the person, or a machinegun, and includes a muffler or silencer for any firearm whether or not such a firearm is included in the foregoing definition.[3][4]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act [wikipedia.org]
-Casey

The legal status of the barrel is not codified until it's mounted on a firearm frame. While, it makes a bit more sense to think of the barrel is the firearm in some contexts, the legal definition of a firearm is the frame where the receiver and trigger assembly is.

Put the same barrel on a stripped AR15 upper purchased as "other" or "pistol" on a 4473 and it's legally now part of a pistol and the length is not regulated. Only in that case, there being a second hand grip or stock on it is the part that is

Pipe would merely be a smooth bore, not a rifle. Technically for it to be a rifle, one would have to "rifle" the barrel. In otherwords, put spiraling grooves. Not actually to hard for a metal mill to do.

However, one could make a simple smooth bore that fires a small shotgun slug in a sabot cartridge.

In the US, the lower receiver is considered the firearm for most legal purposes (it is the part that has the serial number and requires a background check if bought new or from a dealer), whereas barrels (part of the upper receiver, or just "upper"), at this time, do not, and can be, for example, bought through the mail or at a store with no infringing background or ID check. One can buy a barrel of barrels and then print lowers (and magazines if standard capacity magazines become banned) for them without getting any sort of permission from the state, and assemble a firearm. (For nitpickers, you do of course need more than just an upper and lower, but those other parts, such as the trigger assembly, can also be ordered without state interference.)

The truth is, a fully automatic rifle is far easier to manufacture than a semi-automatic.

Think of it as a) unit with a free wheel mechanism vs b) unit with a timing system. The latter is more complicated. In truth, were one to have to make a simple working gun you would likely build either a single shot or a fully automatic design.

Most of the parts of a modern machine gun are identical to the semi-auto models. The few that aren't available legally to non-FFL require the background check but aren't too difficult to manufacture. The trick is to get the timing on the gun so it doesn't always jam or fail.

The receiver is still the gun on a bolt action. The action as a unit includes the bolt, bolt stop, triggerguard, magazine components, etc, and none of those are regulated. Just the actual receiver, which is exactly the same situation as a semi-auto. The only potential confusion is that AR's have two receivers - an upper and a lower receiver. Only one part in a gun ends up being regulated and for whatever reason they chose to serial # and restrict the lower. The upper receiver could have just as easily

Obviously, we need to regulate machining tools because those might make a gun. And we must regulate robotic Metal Presses, because those might make machining tools, which might make guns. We need to regulate mining iron ore, because iron ore is used to make gun parts, machining tools and Robotics. And we must regulate Big Trucks, because they might carry dirt used in mining iron ore....

At some point, laws don't stop people. And making more laws doesn't help.

Obviously, we need to regulate machining tools because those might make a gun. And we must regulate robotic Metal Presses, because those might make machining tools, which might make guns. We need to regulate mining iron ore, because iron ore is used to make gun parts, machining tools and Robotics. And we must regulate Big Trucks, because they might carry dirt used in mining iron ore....

At some point, laws don't stop people. And making more laws doesn't help.

Slippery Slope fallacy much? We make laws to define legality, not to ensure that nothing illegal ever happens. If making something a law was an immediate solution we would have not crime ever. If it is illegal to print weapons then most people will not do it because they do not wish to break the law. In fact the people who would wish to break the law to get a gun will just go get a actual gun not a 3d printed one. No point in getting arrested over a temporary weapon.

A smart gun nut will say i want enough firepower to be able to match the police and perhaps the national guard. After that, munitions become too powerful in the hands of individuals. Our defense against the military is the hope they wont fire on US citizens.

The slope has already gotten slippery. A printed gun by itself doesn't hurt anyone. It only has the POTENTIAL to be used in such a way that someone can be injured or killed.

If you want to stop the iterative process that you feel unnecessary, then we go to the core issue: its against the law to kill someone. If that's against the law most people won't do it. The people who still will won't have any issue breaking any chain of laws that lead up to that issue, so there's no sense in creating that chain of

Slippery Slope is a LOGICAL Fallacy not because it doesn't work, but rather that it doesn't work all the time. In this case, I used Slippery Slope to point out how silly it is to "ban" something because it might be used to do something "bad". Do we ban 3D printers because they can make a lower receiver to a gun? If so, then why wouldn't we do the same thing with all those other things I mentioned (slippery slope). At what point does making something that has a million legal uses illegal simply because someone might make something bad with it?

When you define that property, then you'll have broken the slippery slope. BUT it is up to those that say "ban 3D printers because they make guns" to define that point, because otherwise their logic extends all the way down the manufacturing chain. "Might make a gun" is not reason enough. "Too Easy" is not reason enough.

I see no one saying "ban 3d printers". I see many people saying "ban 3D printing of guns". If people were suggesting we ban 3d printers your argument would be valid. They are not, and as such your chain of events is the very definition of slippery slope.

It's actually cheaper to buy the basic machinery (a drill press) and metal parts to make a gun than it is to buy a 3D-printer. The skills required is essentially "can operate a power drill". It's really not that complex.

Sure, 3D-printing is easier, but not by much.

It's not like requiring a license will stop either methods of making guns -- that ship sailed a long time ago.

I think that's the main point. Guns have been around for the better part of a millenia now. The basic principle of modern semi-automatic cartridge-fed firearms has been around for over 100 years. The reality is that people have been making these things with the most basic of tools LONG before modern 3d-printers and CNC machines were invented.

At its heart a gun is a pretty simple device. Those "high capacity magazines" that they keep whining about are a couple pieces of folded metal and a spring (alternatively, a printed plastic tube and a spring). Regulation of such things was always futile, and the better home manufacturing tools get (for all things) the harder it will become.

Eventually you have to accept the stark reality that people cannot be controlled. If they do something bad they can be punished, but that goal of controlling the populace to keep them from doing something in the first place is just a pipe dream.

Using a computer used to require some skill and understanding of the design. Now any moron such as your self can get on the internet and spread his odious opinions. Im more worried about people like you who think they are oh-so-smart.

The skills required is essentially "can operate a power drill". It's really not that complex.

As someone who owns both a 3D printer and some CNC machine tools, I very much disagree. Precision machining of weapons-grade steel requires a huge amount of skill and experience. I started CNC machining 15 years ago, and I would probably need to do a few weeks of research and practice, and probably buy some new equipment, before I could make a functional rifled barrel. I have done most of my machining work with plastics such as actetal (Delrin), and aluminum, but I have worked with steel enough to know that it is significantly more difficult.

With 3D printing, on the other hand, you just push the button and wait. The downside is that for 3D printing at home, you are limited to plastic. But that will change soon enough.

Sorry for any confusion: I was referring to the knowledge required to complete an "80% lower", which is legally a chunk of metal (not a gun). All you need is a drill press to complete such a lower.

The remaining parts, like barrels, are essentially unregulated gun parts.

The distinction came about because the government had to exactly specify what is a "gun" and what is not. Is a piece of iron ore or metal billet a gun? Clearly not. Is a spring or trigger a gun? No. Is a gun merely a collection of all its parts? If so, what parts can be removed to make it "not a gun"? If someone sells the parts one at a time, does that count as selling a gun?These questions were answered a while back when they said that the receiver/frame of a gun is "the gun" and that a chunk of metal only becomes "a gun" when more than 80% of the machining work needed to make the receiver/frame is complete.

You're right -- making a gun completely from scratch, including the barrel, is significantly more complex.

We bother outlawing murder, we should bother defining each method of murder. Is strangling worse or better than a claw hammer to the head? Why does it matter if a pistol was used and not an "assault rifle". And why do we go after "assault rifles" when the pistols / revolvers were used?

I'm licensed to drive a car. Why isn't that sufficient for me to operate a big rig?

I realize that the left tends to be more passionate about things, and uses their feelings to judge things, but it doesn't really serve society well. We should judge the results, not the intentions. When I hear "what about the children?" asked, I know whatever comes next isn't about results, it is about how someone feels about something. Tyranny comes next.

You should also realize that the right's gun fetish clouds their judgement at the expense of common-sense gun regulations.This is why assault weapons can be easily obtained by mass-murderers, crazy people, drug dealers, and gang bangers. Tyranny is when you can't safely go to a school, a shopping mall, or a movie theater without becoming a statistic in the latest mass killing.

You do realize that people go to schools, shopping malls and movie theaters in places like Iraq, Nigeria and Colombia, which are awash with fully automatic weapons, and don't worry about "becoming a statistic in the latest mass killing"? The reason being that it almost never happens, anywhere. If you start wasting your time worrying about things like that you may as well worry about being hit by a runaway horse or whether you're going to spontaneously combust while you're at it, they're about as likely.

The whole idea of gun control is based on a premise that making guns is hard, requiring precision equipment and expertise. Through the end of the 20th century, it required either a specially-tooled factory, an expert craftsman, or both. (Some guns like the AK series are easier to make than others.) So the approach to gun control was to regulate the factories and the sale of what the factories produce.

As you say, home manufacture is legal. It's not worth regulating: the expertise was rare, and the scale of production was low, and there were not any high-profile cases of homemade guns being used in heinous crimes.

3D printing changes the world so that making a gun no longer requires specialized equipment nor specialized skills. So from the gun-control point of view, there is a real risk of guns being made in secret, in a decentralized way that is hard to detect, and being trafficked outside the existing system of licensed dealers and background checks. So the old framework of gun-control laws won't work. A would-be criminal who can easily make his own gun neatly evades the whole system.

There big question is, what will replace the old legal model? There are many possible things the legislature could try, from giving up on gun control (unlikely) to trying to regulate the plans for gun parts (impractical, as we know from file sharing) to trying to clamp down on the printers themselves (scary).

I disagree. It took me a while to put my finger on it, but I finally worked it out. 3D printing is not a revolution, it's just popular. You can put a CNC mill together for between 1.5x and 2x the price of a hobbyist 3D printer. It will work with metal and it will produce a smoother and more accurate final product. Why is 3D printing being singled out when CNC mills are a much more viable problem?

3D printing changes the world so that making a gun no longer requires specialized equipment nor specialized skills. So from the gun-control point of view, there is a real risk of guns being made in secret, in a decentralized way that is hard to detect, and being trafficked outside the existing system of licensed dealers and background checks. So the old framework of gun-control laws won't work. A would-be criminal who can easily make his own gun neatly evades the whole system.

This simply isn't true. Home CNC has been around for over a decade, in the $2000-$10,000 range. The more DIY you want to get, the lower it goes. The software is open source (LinuxCNC) and the electronics are simple.

There big question is, what will replace the old legal model? There are many possible things the legislature could try, from giving up on gun control (unlikely) to trying to regulate the plans for gun parts (impractical, as we know from file sharing) to trying to clamp down on the printers themselves (scary).

This is a good question. The problem, though, is that the ship has sailed on controlling the printers. There are so many plans available from so many people (see file sharing) and the printers themselves are cobbled together from hobby electronics and parts you can buy at Home Depot.

This is how the tech used to make the gun parts matters.

You may be right that someone in government will try and crack down on the printers themselves (Think of the children!), but it won't be long after that happens that someone with a CNC mill starts producing "controlled" items. The technology used is irrelevant.

Because this allows any Average Joe at home to print the action of a gun, the legally controlled part, all on his own with no skill or expensive machinery and then obtain the other parts as easily as buying some used videogames, and assemble a working weapon. Legally it's no different from making a gun in a home metal shop but practically, it greatly lowers the barriers of entry to making a home-built firearm that has never been on any records of any kind. It also allows high-capacity mags to be made at hom

Either way if we want to end gun deaths, banning pistols which are used in order of magnitudes more murders would be a far better approach.

... and still, effectively, a useless effort.

If "we" really, truly wanted to "end gun deaths," the only way to make it happen would be to convince not only every individual, but every government, that we as a species have more important things to do than point weapons at one another.

The day that the rest of the world agrees to put down their arms and live in peace and harmony, I too will lay mine to rest, but not a moment sooner.

You seem to think that, if their preferred weapon was unavailable, they would just decide, "Ho, hum, can't get a pistol, guess I'll stop being a worthless POS and go get a job!"

Not realistic. What is realistic is that their preferred weapon would become something different - I would pray cudgels and bludgeons, but I highly doubt gang-bangers are going to willingly de-escalate their armaments. Realistically, they'll switch to long guns and explosives. Is that really a better situation?

Making handguns unavailable would do a lot to end gangland murders. We have no need to convince you or me to not shoot each other, we need to disarm thugs. They prefer cheap and easily concealed pistols. The crime statistics show this.

I do not need a gun for self protection and if I did I would move.

no it won't other wise there would be no drug problem as we have banned the sale possesion and production of pot heroin meth and many other drugs yet they are every where any way its called a black market you can't get rid of you problems by banning.

A drill press is about $100, the necessary drill bits are maybe $20-30, the drilling jig is about $125, and the 80% lower receiver and gun parts are about $750. Total cost: about $1,000, or about half the cost of a 3D printer. It's all metal, more durable, and completely unregulated.

If you can follow basic directions (drill here, squirt oil here, etc.) then you can make a gun in a few hours even with minimal skills. Sure, it's not as easy as "download, click

A considerable amount of skill is required to turn a hunk of sheet metal and plumbing into a viable weapon (beyond a simple 1-shot zip gun.) If you want to fabricate something that's reliable, accurate and semi-automatic (fed via clip, mag or belt) it's going to take years of training, education and dedication. That's a steep barrier to entry, and prevents most armorers from doing something stupid with their guns. And even once a person knows exactly how to make an honest

Not on a commercially viable level. The company in the story originally created a lower than lasted 6 rounds before it broke. Their latest lasted 600 rounds, and that was only a few months of development.

and you and I could clone a lower from some resin, pieces of metals, wood or whatever.the point being that frankly their approach to the gun manufacturing sucks monkeyballs and that they're publicity trolling idiots(well, publicity and a bit of spare change trolling dolts..).

now, if their approach included doing some new design, then it would be more interesting. revolving block design or something else that could be manufactured at home from combination of printed bits and parts available from any hw store

While making the whole gun from scratch is hard, it's not really that hard if you use an 80% complete receiver/frame. The ATF decided that a chunk of metal becomes a "gun" when more than 80% of its production is completed. There's many companies that sell, for example, 80%-complete AR-15 lower receivers. Legally, it's a chunk of metal but you can do some basic work to finish it up.

For example, here's some instructions [cncguns.com]. You basically need a drill press (about $100 from Amazon or $70 from Harbor Freight), some drill bits (and maybe an endmill bit) which are available for cheap at hardware stores, and some basic supplies like wood, a permanent marker, etc. 80% lowers are about $80 for small volumes but get cheaper in bulk. You can buy the jigs that tell you exactly where to drill for about $120 and they can be used to produce as many lowers as you want (they don't really wear out).

The fire control parts, trigger, grip, etc. are about $80.

For the "complete" gun parts, it's about $750 (that includes everything except the machine tool parts -- it includes the barrel, stock, fire control parts, etc.).

Operating a drill press isn't terribly hard and one can be trained in a few minutes. After that, it takes a few hours to make the needed holes and the jig makes it pretty idiot-proof. Putting the rifle together isn't terribly hard (and there's lots of information online that details how to do this) and you're good to go. Basically, it's less than a day's work and less than $1,000 for the first rifle (with the cost being amortized if you make any more).

Certain groups have "build parties" where you put your 80% lower into a CNC mill and press "start". Since you push the button, it's you who are making the gun (as opposed to the machinist) and thus is legal. It can make it in about 8 minutes.

Sure, making your own rifle out of metal isn't trivial like it is with a 3D-printer (where you just hit "print"), but it's not that hard either.

Exactly. 3d printing is way over hyped. Right now all they do is make plastic do-dads out of overpriced materials. Yes, I know there are ways to get materials cheaper, and yes, it can be useful for prototyping.

Yes, if it's a manufacturer's FFL (TFA didn't specify, but it seems to be the case from context), it does cover production of semi-automatic firearms as well as pump-action, bolt-action, revolvers, and most others. Machine guns are separate, being (as TFA notes) covered by the National Firearms Act, not the Gun Control Act. For right now, federally speaking, domestically-made semi-automatic firearms don't have any special or unique status. If Senator Feinstein gets her way, of course, that will change, but it's the case currently.

So are short barreled rifles, semi-auto guns that are considered not to have a sporting purpose and pretty much anything that does not cleanly fall into the categories of the GCA. Again this does not make them illegal to own just you need to pay the tax and do the paperwork.

I think the biggest problem with the inclusion of the words "without significant sporting purpose" is that who decides this and what are the thresholds for defining it.
When we went hunting this year I took my Mosin Nagant M91/30, a true battle rifle albeit and old one. We also had an AR-10 and an AR-15 as well. Just because the AR platform guns look like they could be carried into a war zone does not make it any less valid for sporting use. Cosmetic changes to popular sporting caliber firearms do not ma

a) Hunting deer is legal in quite a few states with 5.56. It certainly is here in SC. While I personally would go larger, I certainly wouldn't go "at least.308"..308 is overkill. My favorite deer rifle is a custom built bolt action in.257 Roberts which is MUCH less powerful than a.308 but works fine for deer.

b) The AR-15 is most commonly chambered in 5.56 NATO, but thats not universally the case. Its available in a whole lot of other configurations. In particular the.300 AAC Blackout round (5.56 c

Plenty of manufacturers make.223 ammo designed for hunting deer: softpoints and ballistic tip ammo designed specifically for them is widely available.

Hunting with mil-spec FMJ ammo is not ethical, I agree, but with modern bullets.223 is not an unreasonable round for deer (though perhaps in the lower half of the "acceptable" range). It's more than adequate for smaller predators like coyotes.

You don't need an FFL to create your own guns. You just need an FFL if you want to sell your guns commercially. Don't fuck this up congress. It's still illegal for prohibited persons from making a gun for their own use unless it's a black powder muzzle loader (aka non-modern firearm), though that might be restricted in some states AFAIK

The right to keep and bear arms goes back to the founding days of this country. Our founding fathers realized that without an armed population, government is free to do as it wishes. Our founders needed their guns to declare their independence and self-rule. They also knew that maintaining that independence required an armed populace.

I am stunned when someone poses a statement along the lines of: "You don't have tyranny, why do you need guns?" The person asking this question never stops to think "maybe they don't have tyranny because they have guns".

The next standard argument against guns is that a guy with a rifle could never challenge a tank or aircraft. This is true. But what an armed population lacks in technology, they make up for in numbers. During hunting season the woods of Pennsylvania are filled with 600,000 to 700,000 armed people. At that time, it is the largest "standing army" in the world. Think about that for a minute - one state of hunters dwarfs the biggest standing army in the world.

If tyranny comes to our country, the entire armed population will need to fight. If Afghanistan and Syria taught us anything it's that armed asymmetric guerrilla warfare is very effective. It even gives the world's best funded, best trained military a difficult time.

The responsibility of bearing arms is not a "macho" or "manly" thing. I choose to become proficient with firearms for a number of reasons - readiness if my country needs me, and readiness if my family needs me. I could not live with myself if someone caused harm to my family and I could do nothing to stop them.

Finally, the right of free men and women to defend themselves and their property is a natural-born right, not subject to the political process or the whims of others. Those that say they are free without the means to defend themselves are only free so long as others allow them to be free. That is not true freedom.

The concepts of freedom, liberty, and self-defense are not difficult concepts to understand. They are so deeply ingrained in american life, that these protections have been intentionally and strongly worded into our government's founding documents. These are the documents we all agree to govern ourselves by.

Your definition of tyranny and mine are a bit different. Until "they" start shooting at us, we are merely seeking peaceful redress of our grievances.

Yes, our political and justice system do have their flaws, but a shooting match is not required to fix the current flaws. Good candidates and honest elections can fix these problems. Is our government ready to kill millions of it's own citizens? I don't think so.

As far as I can tell, school shootings are no more common in the U.S. on a per person basis than anywhere else in the world. There are two reasons they seem more common in the U.S. The first is that they get more press. The second is that there are more people in the U.S. relative to the populations of other countries than most people realize.

There's no western society that "lives without guns". There's still gun owners in the UK and Australia, where guns are heavily restricted. The closest that I know of is Japan.

"US folk" use guns for pretty much the same way that people in other countries use them for: recreation, target shooting, hunting, competition, and other shooting sports. For various reasons, such sports are more common in modern America than they are in countries like the UK.

It's already legally settled. You CAN manufacture your own firearms provided it does not run afoul of NFA. You do not need an FFL for this. You cannot transfer the firearm to another person, but it is 100% legal to make a firearm for yourself. Where does a semi-automatic weapon even come into play here? Subby is very uninformed on firearms laws.
There are no questions as to whether an FFL allows someone to teach another how to manufacture firearms. All it does is allows you to buy and sell firearms as a business. Terrible article description.

"no clarification of the law would happen until a high-profile crime involving a 3-D printed weapon was committed"

Run through my personal translator:

"instead of deciding how things should be, objectively, we want to wait until there are a few corpses we can parade around to make an emotional appeal to garner support to further reduce the rights of the law-abiding.
Hopefully these corpses will be children, because they appeal to people's genetically programmed emotional reactions."

a: An FFL7 (which is what Defense Distributed got), once they complete some additional tax paperwork, allows them to make and sell semiautomatic rifles like any other manufacturer. And there are lots of small manufacturers these days. Heck, there is one in Napa, CA, if you want a fine, vintage 2013 AR-15 with "Made in Napa, CA" printed on the side.

b: Plastic AR lower receivers are old news. There is a lot of panic buying of AR rifle components thanks to Dianne Feinstein's salesmanship, but the plastic lowers are readily available.

Distributed Defense's sales, if any, are going to be those wanting to support their R&D, as there is no way they can compete with the existing aluminum lowers, let alone existing plastic ones, on price or quality for a given price.

c: There are a lot of businesses which legally help you make your own gun. EG, you buy an 80% lower (a not completed lower receiver) which the ATF does not consider to be a gun [tacticalmachining.com] and then you finish it yourself by renting some milling machine time and doing it yourself. Until its finished by the purchaser, its a paperweight, not a gun.

If the government says it's illegal to make this information available — which seems like a clear First Amendment violation — it won't matter, because nobody is going to be able to stop the plans from floating around for people to find. Governments are having trouble understanding that they can't control digital "things" as they could easily control physical goods.

The article states it doesn't cover non-sporting semi-automatic firearms, so it would allow, for example, 3D printing a semiautomatic AR-15 clones. Unless you meet the definitions of a Title 2 firearm (which would include, for example, an AR-15 with a barrel less than 16 inches (406.4 mm) long), sporting purposes really only affect imported shotguns and semiautomatic rifles as well as shotguns in general (they're an exception to the general rule of a bore over 0.50 inches (12.7 mm) being a Title 2 firearm

Semi-automatic rifles are under CGA. It's a shame that so many IT professionals who like to consider themselves intelligent and educated are bloody ignorant morons when it comes to firearms (and mostly should STFU).

Let me give you some basics:- single shot muzzleloader = load from the front, and fire, then must reload every round).

- manual chambering (bolt, pump, lever, revolvers) = a mechanical action must be done to eject the old cartridge shell and chamber a new round, often this cocks the hammer/firing pin so the trigger can be pulled and one shot fired.

- single action revolver = cylinder is manually rotated by cocking of hammer. One shot fired, then chamber must be manually cycled.

- double action revolver = cyclinder is manually rotated by pulling of trigger, and fires a round. One shot fired for every trigger pull.

- semi-auto action = gas from bullet powder exploding is used to eject the empty cartridge shell. A spring is used to return the slide back to position, re-cock the firearm, and chamber a new round in the process. One trigger pull = one shot. (AR15s, "Assault Weapons", etc are all semi-automatics).

- automatic = gas from bullet powder exploding ejects cartridge, slide return re-cocks hammer, chambers a new round and then disengages hammer firing the new round. Repeat (or do/while ammo loop). An "assault rifle" M16/M4, and other fully automatic guns fall under this classification. These are the rifles which fall under the NFA.

Let me lead everyone on a bit of a rabbit trail here, because this is very hypothetical. Still, I think it makes sense. Now, consider for a moment that the advent of and rapidly increasing accessibility and affordability of 3D printing may put common goods manufacturing into the hands of the consumer... and takes it away from the gigantic sweat-shop operating acmetm cartel. For Acme TM, that's scary as hell. Their business model goes away and, in spite of the fact that their once employees are now able

As the purpose of it was the people would be able to defend themselves from the government, should the government get to far out of line.(See Declaration of Independence for all this) But there seems to be all sorts of double standards being applied by government to removed the ability of the people to defend themselves against a rough government, If at least not having equal but lessor fire power (which is no defense)

With gun issues at the forefront of today's political discussion, how is this not a topic that needs immediate attention?

"Gun issues" are only at the front of any discussion because specific interest groups and politicians who pander to them are using a crazy person's already illegal acts to try to cement significant new reductions in liberty and increases in Nanny State invasiveness. Those broader goals are always at the top of that demographic's agenda, and they use whichever current events are handy in that mission. This is a topic [home made objects] that doesn't need immediate attention because it doesn't need ANY attention. It never did. It has nothing to do with what crazy, broken people do with objects they buy or make.

Many would argue that gun violence has become more pervasive, and I'd have a hard time arguing against that statement.

Why? It's quite easy to argue against such a statement: according to FBI crime statistics gun-related homicide rates are at their lowest level since 1964 [disastercenter.com] (scroll down to get the normalized rate-per-100,000 people) and have been declining for years. You can get the raw data [fbi.gov] from the FBI directly, if you prefer.

By any objective measure, gun-related homicide in the US has decreased significantly even as the number of legally-owned guns in the country has increased. People may perceive that gun violence is increasing (and it may well be true in certain localities in the country), but overall that's not the case.

According to crime records, while there's been some year-by-year variation in the number of mass shootings and victims, overall the trend has been constant [boston.com] since at least 1980. Despite the enormous media attention they get, they are statistically very rare. Are there too many? Absolutely.

You're right that it's symptomatic of what's wrong with American politics, but I think you stated the case backwards.

The "modern issue" at stake is that people are worried that 3D printers might start getting regulated, with people-going-apeshit-with-guns used as the justification. Wanna make dollhouses? Get a printer license, so that you can enter your license id into the printer, so that it can call the Manufacturer Restrictions Management server to get permission to operate, as well as upload your dol

Clarification of this law may not come soon. But there will be a lot of legal "clarification" going on when people run away with the idea that they can print a gun with the plastic from old yogurt pots, put a round in it and fire it. When the whole thing disintegrates and causes injury to anyone except the intended target.

They're also getting the SOT so they can design and make full-auto guns. It'd be illegal for private citizens to own post-1986 machine guns (but it's quite legal for dealers/manufacturers to make them either for their own internal purposes or for sale to police/military). It's not illegal for them to publish the designs for 3D-printing machine guns (though it'd be very illegal for the average person to print such a gun).

If you were a 3d printer manufacturer, would you like your company to be associated with a mass killing?

What. The. Fuck. Are. You. On. About.

Does Harbor Freight get 'associated' with mass killings because they sell machines you can use to make a gun? Do people (who aren't complete fucking imbeciles, that is) associate Lowe's with the OKC bombing because they sell pipe nipples and fertilizer?

See, what you've done here is provide a sterling example of what vapid political hacks with a fucking agenda do, when they don't have any actual, valid arguments to make - they start searching for an innocent party to martyr. Congratulations, you're part of the problem.